Alexander Haig wanted Reagan to side with the Argentines over the Falklands, newly released papers show

Thirty years ago this Monday, Argentine marines invaded the Falkland Islands, captured its British defenders and declared the islands to be Argentine territory: Las Malvinas. Britain dispatched a naval "task force" to regain them less than a week later. The Falklands War had begun.

According to newly released documents from the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., the U.S. almost took sides against its most important ally, driven by the diplomatic maneuvering of Secretary of State Alexander Haig.

It's already a matter of record that, at first, Washington ostentatiously refused to take sides. Secretary Haig embarked on energetic shuttle diplomacy between Buenos Aires and London to craft a settlement. One month after the landing, the military junta governing Argentina rejected his compromise. The National Security Council met to determine the next stage of U.S. policy.

Thirty years ago the U.K. went to war against Argentina over the Falkland Islands but according to newly released documents from the Reagan Library, the U.S. almost took sides against the U.K. WSJ's Cassell Bryan-Low reports on the anniversary. Photo: AP

Among the vast cache of documents just released from the Reagan Library are the minutes of an NSC meeting on April 30, 1982. The release is the result of a 2002 request by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, which will post the minutes on its website on Monday. These records are an as-it-happened chronicle of decision-making in the White House. No part has been redacted, despite significant intelligence content.

The most striking revelation from the meeting is the degree to which Haig's compromise favored the Argentines. The minutes are quite clear on this point: Haig "then described the elements of the American plan which in effect would give ultimate sovereignty to Argentina but under evolutionary conditions which the Islanders could ultimately accept."

It's far from clear, however, that the islanders could or would accept Argentine sovereignty, nor that Haig was really solicitous of their interests. He had recently told U.S. congressmen that the principle of "self-determination" did not really apply to them. And an off-color joke of his about their sexual practices underlined his lack of sympathy.

But Haig was baffled and frustrated by the reaction of the junta: "Our proposals, in fact, are a camouflaged transfer of sovereignty, and the Argentine foreign minister knows this, but the junta will not accept it." This seemingly confirms some Brits' long-standing suspicion that the U.S. was "tilting" toward Buenos Aires throughout the war. But the minutes contradict this in two ways.

First, the NSC was meeting to discuss and, in the event, to decide on a "tilt" toward the British. At this stage the tilt was more symbolic than practical; a White House statement blamed Buenos Aires for the breakdown of negotiations—which, anyway, were to resume shortly with the Peruvian foreign minister offering a rehash of Haig's ideas ("Haig in a poncho" to the Brits).

Second, Haig's main supporter in the meeting was U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, usually his nemesis. More powerful players—Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Central Intelligence Agency deputy chief Bobby Inman—favored a sharper alignment on the British side. But since things were going their way, they said little.

President Reagan presided over this discussion with a kind of calm detachment. He had outlined a fairly clear U.S. position from the start of the crisis: neutrality over which country had sovereignty over the Falklands but strong opposition to settling the question by military aggression. He stuck to it thereafter.

The British would have preferred U.S. support on both points, but what they got was substantial—American endorsement of a principle that allowed Washington to give them strong material support for a military campaign that faced steep uphill odds even then.

Having established this broad principle, Reagan then allowed his cabinet secretaries large leeway in interpreting it. Indeed, Weinberger and Haig left this NSC meeting with its approval of further installments both of military aid and of shuttle diplomacy.

Three weeks later, however, British troops would land at San Carlos Bay. The modest and largely public U.S. "tilt" toward Britain at this meeting became more pronounced in practice as diplomacy faded and the soldiers decided the outcome on the ground. Military aid became Washington's most significant contribution to the war.

Thatcher's combination of judgment and steel nerves stood the test. Twice she accepted compromise proposals along lines that would have ended her career if the junta had accepted them. But she calculated (or gambled) throughout that the junta would never agree to the interim measure of withdrawing its troops from the islands. She proved to be right—and Britain won.

Though only some at the NSC that day wanted a British victory, almost everyone gained from it. The junta fell, free elections were held in 1983 and Argentina embarked on a rare period of political and economic stability that lasted almost two decades. None of the consequences feared at the NSC meeting actually materialized.

Not least among the beneficiaries were Reagan and Thatcher. She achieved dominance over the British political scene that lasted until the month of her dramatic downfall. Reagan had his main overseas partner in the Cold War sustained and strengthened for the long struggle ahead. The wisdom of the tilt to Britain looks obvious only in retrospect—which is why Weinberger and Inman deserve our respect for seeing it at the time.

—Mr. O'Sullivan is the author of "The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World."

Corrections & Amplifications An earlier version of this article misspelled Las Malvinas as Les Malvinas, incorrectly said Argentine forces had killed Britons there, and incorrectly called Mr. Inman the CIA chief at the time, rather than deputy chief.

It figures: the U.S. version of Realpolitik has always meant favoring your enemies at the expense of your allies. The latest Administration does it particularly well. Then there is the strain of thought, dating back at least to the last years of the Roosevelt Administration, which holds that all forms of colonialism are intolerable, except our own. British colonialism was particularly intolerable, because it meant world stability, without the United States getting any of the credit. So we made them get out of India (over 1,000,000 died), then out of Egypt (handing the leading role in the Middle East to the Soviets), then out of eastern and southern Africa (at who knows what cost?), and then encouraged to stay out of Europe because we were p.o.ed at De Gaulle, and then . . .

But what can you expect from a guy who, when called by the press for reassurance while President Reagan was being operated on for gunshot wounds, said, "I am in charge here"? Maybe he identified with the generals who were in charge of Argentina at the time.

Legal/schmegal, friend/enemy. . . it will always be in the interest of a global maritime power like the US to support the independence of island territories from mainland countries. We can't know when a base that is not subject to interference by a large mainland population will be useful.

Who can doubt what the decidedly anti-Anglo Obama administration would do, should the conflict over the Falklands revive? Obama cast the die himself when he removed a bust of Churchill, on loan from the British, from the White House during the first months of his presidency.

In any case, whoever is "third world" in Obama's eyes "must be right!" And that includes the Argentine dictatorship of Cristina Kirchner.

Imagine if the US were to turn away from Britain, after all we've endured together! And for what? So that Obama could "show the world" what a superb post-colonialist he is! And to impress whom exactly? Nations that are among the most oppressive and corrupt on earth? With friends like those.....

By now, it is clear that America has a bad habit of betraying its friends. At a point, we will have no friends.

With final reference to Haig, his background should have alerted Republicans to the nature of the man. They should have kept this acolyte of both MacArthur and Edward Almond at arm's length. As for the time spent assisting McNamara prosecute the Vietnam War---it speaks for itself. Why Reagan hired him is the real question, since what this loose cannon did while in several White Houses arose out of his character, which was known. Haig had one lifelong interest: to "explore" how far a military man could influence US policy. Not what the Constitution encourages.

I believe it's time to reexamine the power of the presidency, in order to diminish it. We now have a political system, whereby every four years a politician takes over and behaves as though his mandate were to do with our country as he wishes---as though the United States were his, as though he owned it. And us.

No longer is the president seen as bound, both to the Constitution and to the wishes of the citizenry. Instead, if Clinton, Bush, and now Obama are indicative, presidents now govern imperiously. This is precisely what the anti-Federalists warned against---that a strong central government, given enough time, leads inexorably to a quasi-monarchy. And so it has.

Fortunately, we have the political means to change how the president operates. The Congress can delimit his power substantially, via their legislative ownership and control of the purse. A president can appeal to the Court, but it too is subject to the will of the people---since they elect both the presidents who nominate them as well as the Senators who vote the nominees up or down.

Right and wrong often do not matter much in politics, but for what it's worth, Argentina have no valid claim to the Falklands other than that they're geographically close, and the entire population of the islands is and wants to remain British. The issue is clear cut - the islands belong to Britain - but is exploited by argentinian politicians to drum up nationalist fervor and support, especially when the argentinian economy falters.

VIOLENT WORLD PSYCHIATRY-PSYCHOLOGY REVEALED(mindless mkultra crimes performed by police and psychiatrists/psychologists)

USE OF MKULTRA + HUNGER GAMES TODAY....STATE OF THE ART EXPLANATION ON MIND CONTROL TECHNIQUES(violent world of government psychiatry/psychology and police revealed..... learn exactly per how is done and by whom... use of psychology/psychiatry for mass population or ethnic cleansing as well as crimes to which we witness daily on behalf of Zionism/communism/liberalism). SELF ELECTED GOVERNMENTS GOING AS FAR AS USING PEDOPHILIA TO RESOLVE THEIR MINDLESS CRIMINAL POLITICAL ISSUES AGAINST TARGETED VICTIMS WHILE BLAIMING IT ALL ON CHURCH !!! REAL 911 REVEALED !!!

TRUTH ABOUT RUSSIAN COMMUNIST APPARATCHIK ALIKE GANGSTER AND TRAITOR DAVID DUKE OR OBAMA = 70 YEARS OLD US GOVERNMENT NEWS(including Eastern European Ethnic cleansing for the sake of Slavic super state or Soviet Union number two).

REMINDER...MY YOUTUBE ACCOUNT WAS HIJACKED(March 07th, 2012) BY US GOVERNMENT WHILE PRIMARY E-MAIL AS WELL AS BLOGS WERE ALL SHUT DOWN FOR THE SAKE OF CENSORSHIP REGARDING GENOCIDE AGAINST ME PERSONALLY THAT INVOLVED ABDUCTIONS / MK-ULTRA / FORCED BRAIN ELECTRODE - CHIP IMPLANTS / HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION / BLACKLISTING / FORCEFUL UNEMPLOYMENT AND ASSASSINATIONS !!! ALL AGAINST WHITE(under "NAZI" lie) CIVILIAN POPULATION TODAY ACROSS THE EUROPE AND NORTHERN AMERICA !!!

WHY TO ACCEPT LIABILITIES FOR CRIMES COMMITTED WHEN WE CAN SIMPLY ASSASSINATE OUR VICTIMS(YOU) THANKS TO HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS AND FREE PRESS/MEDIA(most severe CENSORSHIP OF GENOCIDE in entire history of human kind) !!

NOT HUMAN RIGHTS COURTS, BUT ORGANIZERS OF GENOCIDE AGAINST WHITES AND SPONSORS OF BOGUS "MULTICULTURALISM" $$$ CLAIMS AT EXPENSE OF PERSECUTED WHITES(while minorities are awarded for and instructed by governments in bogus human rights claims, whites are simply killed if not perverted in multiculturalism garbage) !!!

For fast updates use facebook.com/people/Loki-Nagrind/100001962176474 Thank you

One should not forget why Haig tilted toward Argentina: Argentina was our ally in the war against Soviet-sponsored insurgency in Lartin America (as were Uruguay and El Salvador). The generals took great risks in defeating the insurgency, and some of them have beeen imprisoned for it. Reagan's policy was to stop communist aggression in every hemishere including our own. Mrs Thatcher would have been sympathetic to this agenda, had it not been perverted by the generals' stupid decision to seek popularity through war.

Haig was a bloody fool who had no understanding whatsoever of who Margaret Thatcher was. No matter what, she never had any intention of accepting a transfer to Argentine sovereignty. She wasn’t just tough as nails. She was also a brilliant strategist.

If there had been any possibility of the pig-headed generals ever accepting one of Haig’s not so coy sovereignty - transfer - proposals, she never would have accepted. Her acceptance was entirely predicated on making the junta look like the uncooperative party. She understood that the favorite Argentine geo-political strategy is “Doubling Down.”

(Nothing has since changed, for this is all that Cristina seems to understand.)

Second, there was never any possibility that the islanders would ever willingly accept Argentine sovereignty. It appears as if Haig understood this but really didn’t care one whit about what the islander’s wanted.

As an Argentine resident, I really can’t fault the Falklanders one bit for wanting to remain British.

How the US almost "betrayed" Britain? Oh no, that's not a biased propaganda piece at all - that's just journalism! Right?

The media and Washington keep praising Britain because like Congress, it goes along with whatever Israel demands in the Middle East. Should Britain complain about the murders for Israel, the media would turn against them and find historical points to bring up against them instantly, like they did with France.

And the dumb U.S. public, completely ignorant of history and international politics except for the talking points served them for the moment, would eat it up.

Not surprised by all this, let's be honest America always looks after its own interests and although Britain has been loyal to America and always backed them unfortunately for Britain the fact is that you don't need us, unless supporting your conflicts around the world. anyway how good would have America looked agreeing to 3100 Islanders being kicked off (or killed) an Island they have been on for 180 years?

We should support the UK all the way. Look at South America now, look at who Argentina is close too: Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Evo Morales, Daniel Ortega. These people have destroyed Latin America and is holding it, and it's people, back. On top of that the "president" listed above have given the US nothing but trouble.

Falkland Island belong to the UK. If Argentina want's to get knocked on their @SS again then let them.

Not to worry, Sullivan. The trends, political and economic, suggest we won't be a Global Maritime Power after a decade or so. We're on track to dismantle the Navy gradually, if not by design then by reason of economic collapse.

That's not the Monroe Doctrine but you're right, there was a mutual defense treaty among the Organization of American States, although Argentina was the agressor. The Falklands War and then the Iraq War pretty much killed the treaty though.

The Monroe Doctrine is irrelevant. When the British first sent settlers to the islands is irrelevant. When we first date the Argentine nation is irrelevant. Really, most all arguments being bandied about here on this thread are irrelevant.

If we in the 21st century are to believe that popular sovereignty is the most enlightened (or least evil, depending on how you view it) form of government, then only the will of the people currently residing on the islands is relevant, and they have made their voice crystal clear, time and time again.

fyi the Monroe Doctrine is not a "treaty." It is an idea expressed by President Monroe in 1821 that no European Power should be allowed to reclaim any independent republic in the Americas as a colony. It is a statement of policy, but has no legal standing in national or international law.

The Falkland Islands would seem to be the ultimate case of disputed land, because they were variously claimed by the Brits and Argies during the late 1700s and early 1800s. The Brits prevailed in the claim by POPULATING the island with settlers, which then as now is the major basis of sovereignty under international law. Due to their strong basis for sovereignty, I don't believe that the U.S. has ever considered British ownership of the Falklands to be a violation of the Monroe Doctrine.

The Argies like to inflame passions over the Falklands at times when their economy is faltering in order to divert their people's attention away from failed governments. That was just as true in 1981 when the right-wing Junta started the war as it is now when the left-wing government is wrecking the economy. The reality is that their claim to the islands is a very thin one, which the Brits can't be expected to take seriously.

Im not really a fan of any country down there, but I'm also not surprised that Argentina has cozied up to its neighbors. Especially after they found resources, and have developing economies. And god forbid we actually have differing viewpoints in a cabinet. Note there is what Haig had argued, at points, and what actually happened. But supporting the Brits militarily was not ever a wise choice. It wasn't then, and it wouldn't be in the future, where the situation is similar. This is the Western Hemisphere.

If there's a fool in this conversation, it's not Reagan. He administration made the right decision, period. And your twisted stat about the definition of "debtor status" is utter nonsense, and any first year economics student knows it.

So which is more important to you, Tori -- Obama's approval rating in Britain, or his integrity to the principles of our Constitution?

As for Cameron's praise, he has little choice. He's dealing with a US president that views the like of Hugo Chavez with warm affection. His best hope is to smile, curry favor, and wait out the administration in hopes that Obama's successor is more of a statesman and less of a posturing populist.

Perhaps your father was turned-off by Haig’s insistence that he was in charge of the executive branch of government following the attempted assassination of President Reagan, and not Vice President Bush, as the U.S. Constitution stipulates.

i assume you consider yourself a "nonWHITE" argentinian, (a "native"), i hope you know they came from somewhere in the far east, ("china"), so, you are planning to move out. following your views, northamerica would become depopulated, the carib would follow the same, and so would be southamerica, i will not go into the rest of the world, we may agree, it gets to be too complicted.

it looks like for you everything is irrelevant, maybe, you yourself is irrelevant.. the idea that 'popular soverignty" is the way to decide sounds too convenient, so the mexicans invade Texas and their will is to be part of mexico, your next door's family take your house, (if you have one), and their will is to make it theirs. you see the point.

I agree with your point, but I wouldn't dismiss history quite as quickly as you do. When the Brits first sent permanent settlers (in the 1830s) is relevant, if only because it was before the Argies and, as Mr. Sewell writes just above, that establishes a strong basis for sovereignty.

My point is not that time itself is irrelevant, for the many generations of continual residence and British rule qualify in my opinion as a reasonable and rather decisive rationale to justify defending the status quo on the Falkland Islands.

For me, it is irrelevant whether the Argentine nation is dated from 1815, and British occupation of the Islands from 1820, or vice-versa. Quite simply, there must be some reasonable statute of limitations for when people in the New World are to be recognized as possessing secure title to their land. I believe that the Falklanders have met a reasonable standard.

As to the absurdly silly argument that another poster has made regarding land ownership, sovereignty, and invasion. Obviously, legal title to land does not convey forthwith to an invader and neither does a foreign invader immediately become a legal resident eligible to vote. It saddens me that such simple and obvious points must be clearly stated.

Never the Argentine diplomacy had gave up our rights and historic claim towards those territories, which were for 250 years part of the Spanish Empire, and since 1772, after a decision taken by King don Carlos III of Spain, were those islands a dependency of the Viceroyalty of River Plate. Only once, France challenged the Spanish authority on the islands. It was when were occupied by the French Royal Navy, the capital city was christened as Port Louis, honouring HCM King Louis XVI of France. Nevertheless, the situation changed, when Paris ordered Admiral Marquis d’Estaing and le comte de Bougainville to withdraw from the islands, the Bourbon Family Treaty signed in 1718, which had pre-eminence. England had occupied the islands for a very short period of time, considering the strategic position, in relation with the Straits of Magellan and Cap Town, the two passages to Asia and British colonies. After the independence of Argentina in 1816, the constitutional authorities from Buenos Aires sent settlers and appointed as Governor General a former French officer the baron de Vernet (an Huguenot born in Koln) . England recognized the independence without any kind of reserve in relation to the islands; you can see those documents in English archives, even in one of the mail libraries at Oxford. (by Clemens Metternich)

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.